This is a draft article I am putting together for the website. It will form part of my submission to the current QLD electoral reform consultation process.

Voting by delegable proxy is a form of direct democracy that allows the entire voting population to vote on each bill before parliament by electing a sitting member to vote on their behalf. Rather than sitting members casting one equal vote each, they cast all the votes of the people who have delegated their vote to them. So a sitting member may represent 1 million voters and thus cast one million votes on their behalf.

Voting by delegable proxy combines the best features of direct and representative democracy. It allows people to choose between being represented in parliament or to vote on each bill, or to combine these options as they see fit.

In electing a sitting representative, voting by delegable proxy allows people far more options than the current system, which to a large extent disenfranchises people who do not support their local representative.

The system can include provisions for citizens to directly vote on a bill rather than to delegate a proxy. It can also include provisions to easily change the delegate at any time, which would effectively allow people to change their vote on specific bills where they disagree with the intentions of their current delegate. This is particularly true where electronic voting is incorporated.

The main problem usually associated with direct democracy is the effort required for each individual to vote on each proposal before parliament. Voting by delegable proxy avoids this issue. By not requiring periodic voting, the system may reduce the burden of voting even compared to the current representative democracy system, for those people who are happy to stick with the same delegate for a long period of time.

Voting by delegable proxy alleviates some of the concerns associated with compulsory voting, by reducing the burden associated with voting, while still requiring people to perform their civic duty by participating in democracy. It also eliminates the most common argument given in favour of optional voting – that people do not support any of the available candidates.

Voting by delegable proxy allows people to be represented based on local issues, ideological grounds, party lines or all three. This avoids the trade-off in current two house systems that force people to be represented by a single local member in the lower house and by a party in the upper house under a proportional representation system. Instead of relying on multiple senate members from a party (who may not all be known or trusted) to reflect the strength of the party under the current system, a strong party may be reflected by one or a small number of sitting members with a large number of proxy votes delegated to them.

An ideal place to trial voting by delegable proxy would be the state Senate in Queensland. Queensland abolished its senate in 1922. Reintroducing the senate would present a unique opportunity to trial this system.

Voting by delegable proxy could use electronic voting in parallel with a paper based system, allowing citizens to choose between being on the electronic roll and getting the full range of options, or being on the paper roll and delegating their vote once every few years. The number of representatives could be adjusted as it is likely that a coalition of five or so members with significant backing could gain control of parliament. A politician’s salary could be made proportional to their support base. This would give very popular members a significant income and allow them to pay ‘ministers’ to advise them on each issue. The sitting members with the least support would likely have far less than 1% of the vote each.

There would still be a role for political parties under such a system, as parties are far more than a group of candidates and elected representatives. Political parties could add stability to the system if enough people felt this was necessary. Political parties could help to coordinate the activities of politicians across local, state and federal legislatures and provide easily identifiable policy platforms.

Isnt the biggest - and fatal - flaw of this idea is that there is no obligation on the sitting member to vote according to the wishes of the electorate? Parties still rule and vote as a bloc. If a member were obligated to vote according to the wishes of the people then Tony Abbott would be PM and oakeshott and windsor would have voted for him.

an MP who has to vote according to the wishes of the voting electorate also has no real value. you could replace him with... no one.

on the same forum where you have people that dont want to vote at all, the only people who will vote in this manner are fringe groups and special-interest groups which by definition are non-representative.

unless the community truly embraced the notion (and they wont) it simply makes the system of govt more hijackable by the noisy minority.

Isnt the biggest - and fatal - flaw of this idea is that there is no obligation on the sitting member to vote according to the wishes of the electorate?

No. The idea is that they vote according to the wishes of the people who delegate their votes to them. Failing to do so would be a fast ticket out of a seat in parliament.

Quote:

an MP who has to vote according to the wishes of the voting electorate also has no real value. you could replace him with... no one.

And get direct democracy?

Quote:

on the same forum where you have people that dont want to vote at all, the only people who will vote in this manner are fringe groups and special-interest groups which by definition are non-representative.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Everyone would vote.

Quote:

unless the community truly embraced the notion (and they wont)

Can you explain what you mean by 'truly embrace'?

Quote:

Why have an MP involved at all?

Because most people do not want direct democracy. They do not want to be involved in every piece of legislation that passes through parliament. They want a representative to act on their behalf.

Isnt the biggest - and fatal - flaw of this idea is that there is no obligation on the sitting member to vote according to the wishes of the electorate?

No. The idea is that they vote according to the wishes of the people who delegate their votes to them. Failing to do so would be a fast ticket out of a seat in parliament.

[quote]an MP who has to vote according to the wishes of the voting electorate also has no real value. you could replace him with... no one.

And get direct democracy?

Quote:

on the same forum where you have people that dont want to vote at all, the only people who will vote in this manner are fringe groups and special-interest groups which by definition are non-representative.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Everyone would vote.

Quote:

unless the community truly embraced the notion (and they wont)

Can you explain what you mean by 'truly embrace'?

Quote:

Why have an MP involved at all?

Because most people do not want direct democracy. They do not want to be involved in every piece of legislation that passes through parliament. They want a representative to act on their behalf.[/quote]

actually... no it wouldnt. the people voting by proxy will only ever be a minority of the electorate and in places like australia, a very small minority. Thereofre at election time the MP will still be appealing to non-proxy voters in the vast majority.

But what is the motivation for the MP to vote according to the proxy? If enforced it renders the value of the MP and his party affiliation pointless and that DEFINATELY destroys his career.

Isnt the biggest - and fatal - flaw of this idea is that there is no obligation on the sitting member to vote according to the wishes of the electorate?

No. The idea is that they vote according to the wishes of the people who delegate their votes to them. Failing to do so would be a fast ticket out of a seat in parliament.

[quote]an MP who has to vote according to the wishes of the voting electorate also has no real value. you could replace him with... no one.

And get direct democracy?

Quote:

on the same forum where you have people that dont want to vote at all, the only people who will vote in this manner are fringe groups and special-interest groups which by definition are non-representative.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Everyone would vote.

Quote:

unless the community truly embraced the notion (and they wont)

Can you explain what you mean by 'truly embrace'?

Quote:

Why have an MP involved at all?

Because most people do not want direct democracy. They do not want to be involved in every piece of legislation that passes through parliament. They want a representative to act on their behalf.[/quote]

hang on... you want ALL people to vote on ALL Bills? like the 200+ in the last parliament? Do you seriously expect people will ever agree to that?

Forget that. I misread. however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

Forget that. I misread. however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

Must say I agree with GM, and that won't happen often!

Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.

Forget that. I misread. however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

Must say I agree with GM, and that won't happen often!

Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.

why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things. our current PR syetm is not bad but you stll get examples of the person who came third winning the seat (eg Wilkie). I dont see that as anything like fair or democratic.

Forget that. I misread. however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

Must say I agree with GM, and that won't happen often!

Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.

why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things. our current PR syetm is not bad but you stll get examples of the person who came third winning the seat (eg Wilkie). I dont see that as anything like fair or democratic.

Forget that. I misread. however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

Must say I agree with GM, and that won't happen often!

Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.

why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things. our current PR syetm is not bad but you stll get examples of the person who came third winning the seat (eg Wilkie). I dont see that as anything like fair or democratic.

Australia doesn't have PR. It has an FPP system with preferences added. A party can win government with around 35% of the primary vote. How can that be proportional representation?

PR came to NZ because the people were sick of being governed by minority dictatorships.

Elections in Australia are won by a relatively small number of swinging voters in marginal seats. The system suits the two major parties, which would fight like hell against PR ruining their cosy club.

Forget that. I misread. however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

Must say I agree with GM, and that won't happen often!

Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.

why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things. our current PR syetm is not bad but you stll get examples of the person who came third winning the seat (eg Wilkie). I dont see that as anything like fair or democratic.

Australia doesn't have PR. It has an FPP system with preferences added. A party can win government with around 35% of the primary vote. How can that be proportional representation?

PR came to NZ because the people were sick of being governed by minority dictatorships.

Elections in Australia are won by a relatively small number of swinging voters in marginal seats. The system suits the two major parties, which would fight like hell against PR ruining their cosy club.

my bad... i thought PR was preferential voting. th highlighted bit is a bit of a joke tho. now they are governed by more minorities than they had before. Anyhow, I still think of propertional representation as the Special Olympics of democracy where every competitor receives a medal for competing. I really prefer to be governed by parties that actually WON. the only people that like PR are the minor parties because they cant compete on the level playing ground and want an artifical leg up. This is the same system that garantees seats for a particular ethnic minority so that now you dont even have to compete to win - just put your name on the list.

however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.

I don't think it is any more complicated than the current system. It's just that you are more familiar with the current system.

Effective government may be even simpler, due to the fewer people that need to be involved. However, I would suggest using the system in the upper house rather than the lower house.

Quote:

I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

There may need to be elections if that is the only practical way to do it, but I doubt that would be the case. If you can change your delegation at any time, there is no actual need for regular elections.

Quote:

Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.

This would also achieve that. The difference is that instead of achieving PR by adjusting the number of sitting MPs in a party, it is achieved by adjusting the voting authority of as little as one sitting MP. Why have a second or third 'hanger on' MP if one MP can do the voting. This system actually gets far closer to true proportional representation than typical implimentations of PR.

Quote:

why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things.

PR does not result in minority rule. I don't think he was referring to that with 'not counting'.

Quote:

Australia doesn't have PR.

We do in the senate.

Quote:

It has an FPP system with preferences added.

That is an absurd way to describe it. We do not have FPP, except in a few local council elections.

Quote:

A party can win government with around 35% of the primary vote.

If you are referring to the issues with single member electorates, it is theoretically possible to win office with as little as 25% of the vote.

Quote:

the only people that like PR are the minor parties because they cant compete on the level playing ground and want an artifical leg up

[quote]however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.

I don't think it is any more complicated than the current system. It's just that you are more familiar with the current system.

Effective government may be even simpler, due to the fewer people that need to be involved. However, I would suggest using the system in the upper house rather than the lower house.

Quote:

I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

There may need to be elections if that is the only practical way to do it, but I doubt that would be the case. If you can change your delegation at any time, there is no actual need for regular elections.

Quote:

Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.

This would also achieve that. The difference is that instead of achieving PR by adjusting the number of sitting MPs in a party, it is achieved by adjusting the voting authority of as little as one sitting MP. Why have a second or third 'hanger on' MP if one MP can do the voting. This system actually gets far closer to true proportional representation than typical implimentations of PR.

Quote:

why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things.

PR does not result in minority rule. I don't think he was referring to that with 'not counting'.

Quote:

Australia doesn't have PR.

We do in the senate.

Quote:

It has an FPP system with preferences added.

That is an absurd way to describe it. We do not have FPP, except in a few local council elections.

Quote:

A party can win government with around 35% of the primary vote.

If you are referring to the issues with single member electorates, it is theoretically possible to win office with as little as 25% of the vote.

Quote:

the only people that like PR are the minor parties because they cant compete on the level playing ground and want an artifical leg up

There is nothing artificial about it.[/quote]

no need for elections? how exactly do you plan to install or remove a sitting member? how (and when) do you expect to form executive government?

[quote]however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.

I don't think it is any more complicated than the current system. It's just that you are more familiar with the current system.

Effective government may be even simpler, due to the fewer people that need to be involved. However, I would suggest using the system in the upper house rather than the lower house.

Quote:

I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.

There may need to be elections if that is the only practical way to do it, but I doubt that would be the case. If you can change your delegation at any time, there is no actual need for regular elections.

Quote:

Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.

This would also achieve that. The difference is that instead of achieving PR by adjusting the number of sitting MPs in a party, it is achieved by adjusting the voting authority of as little as one sitting MP. Why have a second or third 'hanger on' MP if one MP can do the voting. This system actually gets far closer to true proportional representation than typical implimentations of PR.

Quote:

why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things.

PR does not result in minority rule. I don't think he was referring to that with 'not counting'.

Quote:

Australia doesn't have PR.

We do in the senate.

Quote:

It has an FPP system with preferences added.

That is an absurd way to describe it. We do not have FPP, except in a few local council elections.

Quote:

A party can win government with around 35% of the primary vote.

If you are referring to the issues with single member electorates, it is theoretically possible to win office with as little as 25% of the vote.

Quote:

the only people that like PR are the minor parties because they cant compete on the level playing ground and want an artifical leg up

There is nothing artificial about it.[/quote]

There is plenty that is artificial about it compared to the noral way of compettive life. in PR you get to 'win' even if you didnt cross the line first (or second or even third).

There is nothing absurd about my description of the Australian system. It is essentially FPP, with preferences. How else could you describe it?

Preferential voting. Or better yet, instant runoff voting as the yanks call it. I assume by FPP you mean first past the post? That is a different system and the meaning specifically excludes preferential systems.

Quote:

no need for elections? how exactly do you plan to install or remove a sitting member? how (and when) do you expect to form executive government?

A sitting member gets removed when his support base drops below that of a competitor who is trying to gain entry.

Quote:

There is plenty that is artificial about it compared to the noral way of compettive life. in PR you get to 'win' even if you didnt cross the line first (or second or even third).

You don't win. You get a seat in parliament. There are about 100 of these, so the idea that they can only go to the first 1, 2 or 3 competitors is a bit silly.

There is nothing absurd about my description of the Australian system. It is essentially FPP, with preferences. How else could you describe it?

Preferential voting. Or better yet, instant runoff voting as the yanks call it. I assume by FPP you mean first past the post? That is a different system and the meaning specifically excludes preferential systems.

Quote:

no need for elections? how exactly do you plan to install or remove a sitting member? how (and when) do you expect to form executive government?

A sitting member gets removed when his support base drops below that of a competitor who is trying to gain entry.

[quote]There is plenty that is artificial about it compared to the noral way of compettive life. in PR you get to 'win' even if you didnt cross the line first (or second or even third).

You don't win. You get a seat in parliament. There are about 100 of these, so the idea that they can only go to the first 1, 2 or 3 competitors is a bit silly.[/quote]

highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day... yay. it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse.

There is nothing absurd about my description of the Australian system. It is essentially FPP, with preferences. How else could you describe it?

Preferential voting. Or better yet, instant runoff voting as the yanks call it. I assume by FPP you mean first past the post? That is a different system and the meaning specifically excludes preferential systems.

Quote:

no need for elections? how exactly do you plan to install or remove a sitting member? how (and when) do you expect to form executive government?

A sitting member gets removed when his support base drops below that of a competitor who is trying to gain entry.

[quote]There is plenty that is artificial about it compared to the noral way of compettive life. in PR you get to 'win' even if you didnt cross the line first (or second or even third).

You don't win. You get a seat in parliament. There are about 100 of these, so the idea that they can only go to the first 1, 2 or 3 competitors is a bit silly.[/quote]

dont be obtuse. You aren't SOB, you know exatly what I mean. PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament. Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us. I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democrcay - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.

Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?

In practice it seems you can win an election with slightly under 50% 2pp nationwide. I doubt it could go as low as 49%. Theoretically it could be as low as 25%.

Quote:

highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day...

In practice it would be once every time an important issue came up. It would focus on that one important issue. This is a good thing, as you would be able to tell from the 'election' outcome what the public thinks of that issue, which is far from the case today.

Quote:

it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse

These would be one and the same thing. It would get rid of this distinction between 'a time for political promises' and 'when you find out what is actually going to happen.'

Quote:

PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament.

You are missing the point, which is not some arbitrary measure of fairness based on who gets a seat, but whether the outcome (legislation, not who your 'local' candidate is) represents the will of the majority. Single member electorates theoretically allow a party to gain control of parliament with only 25% public support, even if the other 75% of the population would prefer another (single/common) party. PR requires the ruling party or coalition to have 50% support. What appears to annoy you is that this involves allowing minor parties into parliament, as if the artificial concentration of power created by single member electorates must be protected at all costs - even above the will of the people.

Quote:

Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us.

PR guarantees this. Single member electorates do not. In practice single member electorates nearly always concentrate over 50% of the seats in parliament in the hands of a party with less than 50% first preference support.

Quote:

I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democracy - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.

Nice sentiment, but you have your logic backwards. To put it another way, the 'majority' you talk of is only achieved after you exclude about one third of the population.

Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?

In practice it seems you can win an election with slightly under 50% 2pp nationwide. I doubt it could go as low as 49%. Theoretically it could be as low as 25%.

[quote]highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day...

In practice it would be once every time an important issue came up. It would focus on that one important issue. This is a good thing, as you would be able to tell from the 'election' outcome what the public thinks of that issue, which is far from the case today.

Quote:

it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse

These would be one and the same thing. It would get rid of this distinction between 'a time for political promises' and 'when you find out what is actually going to happen.'

Quote:

PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament.

You are missing the point, which is not some arbitrary measure of fairness based on who gets a seat, but whether the outcome (legislation, not who your 'local' candidate is) represents the will of the majority. Single member electorates theoretically allow a party to gain control of parliament with only 25% public support, even if the other 75% of the population would prefer another (single/common) party. PR requires the ruling party or coalition to have 50% support. What appears to annoy you is that this involves allowing minor parties into parliament, as if the artificial concentration of power created by single member electorates must be protected at all costs - even above the will of the people.

Quote:

Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us.

PR guarantees this. Single member electorates do not. In practice single member electorates nearly always concentrate over 50% of the seats in parliament in the hands of a party with less than 50% first preference support.

Quote:

I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democracy - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.

Nice sentiment, but you have your logic backwards. To put it another way, the 'majority' you talk of is only achieved after you exclude about one third of the population.[/quote]

I hate to be the one to tell you but that is PRECISELY what a majority is. you seem to be going to all kinds of lengths to provide a system that mitigates AGAINST the majority. Your simplistic definiont os 'majority' is the problem. 51% is an unequivocal majority. 46% is also a theoretical majority if the alternatives get less. I really dont see what makes you think that 46% is somehow an intrinsic evil. it could be if the other 54% are diametrically opposed to the wishes of the 46% which in their case they need to play the game better and not run 99 different parties. But in reality that is NOT how it works.

Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?

In practice it seems you can win an election with slightly under 50% 2pp nationwide. I doubt it could go as low as 49%. Theoretically it could be as low as 25%.

[quote]highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day...

In practice it would be once every time an important issue came up. It would focus on that one important issue. This is a good thing, as you would be able to tell from the 'election' outcome what the public thinks of that issue, which is far from the case today.

Quote:

it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse

These would be one and the same thing. It would get rid of this distinction between 'a time for political promises' and 'when you find out what is actually going to happen.'

Quote:

PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament.

You are missing the point, which is not some arbitrary measure of fairness based on who gets a seat, but whether the outcome (legislation, not who your 'local' candidate is) represents the will of the majority. Single member electorates theoretically allow a party to gain control of parliament with only 25% public support, even if the other 75% of the population would prefer another (single/common) party. PR requires the ruling party or coalition to have 50% support. What appears to annoy you is that this involves allowing minor parties into parliament, as if the artificial concentration of power created by single member electorates must be protected at all costs - even above the will of the people.

Quote:

Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us.

PR guarantees this. Single member electorates do not. In practice single member electorates nearly always concentrate over 50% of the seats in parliament in the hands of a party with less than 50% first preference support.

Quote:

I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democracy - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.

Nice sentiment, but you have your logic backwards. To put it another way, the 'majority' you talk of is only achieved after you exclude about one third of the population.[/quote]

it guarantees the exact opposite by enfranchising parties with even LESS support. You might not like giving control to parties with less than 50% support but it craps all over giving it so people with 10%. I have a better idea...

run-off elections. in each electorate where there is not a winner with over 50%, conduct a second election between the two top vote-getters and winner gets the seat. this is not the same as Prop Rep which some call 'instant run-off' but isnt. then with a genuine two-man race we get the legitimate majority. That way the REAL majority winner gets in.

I know you wont liek it because it doesnt give the artificial leg-up to minority parties that barely get 10%. The solution is simple: If you want to be in power then you need to get at least the second-highest votes .

Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?

In practice it seems you can win an election with slightly under 50% 2pp nationwide. I doubt it could go as low as 49%. Theoretically it could be as low as 25%.

[quote]highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day...

In practice it would be once every time an important issue came up. It would focus on that one important issue. This is a good thing, as you would be able to tell from the 'election' outcome what the public thinks of that issue, which is far from the case today.

Quote:

it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse

These would be one and the same thing. It would get rid of this distinction between 'a time for political promises' and 'when you find out what is actually going to happen.'

Quote:

PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament.

You are missing the point, which is not some arbitrary measure of fairness based on who gets a seat, but whether the outcome (legislation, not who your 'local' candidate is) represents the will of the majority. Single member electorates theoretically allow a party to gain control of parliament with only 25% public support, even if the other 75% of the population would prefer another (single/common) party. PR requires the ruling party or coalition to have 50% support. What appears to annoy you is that this involves allowing minor parties into parliament, as if the artificial concentration of power created by single member electorates must be protected at all costs - even above the will of the people.

Quote:

Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us.

PR guarantees this. Single member electorates do not. In practice single member electorates nearly always concentrate over 50% of the seats in parliament in the hands of a party with less than 50% first preference support.

Quote:

I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democracy - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.

Nice sentiment, but you have your logic backwards. To put it another way, the 'majority' you talk of is only achieved after you exclude about one third of the population.[/quote]

so only 10 times a year instead of the current once every three years? you are still demanding and exceptionally high input by an already jaded electorate. and what will actually take place is that about 10% will take interest and the rest will register their preference and not change it from one decade to the next.

It is probably the only option that could possibly be worse than voluntary voting.

I really dont see what makes you think that 46% is somehow an intrinsic evil.

It is not about good vs evil. It is about democracy - rule by majority.

Quote:

You might not like giving control to parties with less than 50% support but it craps all over giving it so people with 10%.

You can't gain control with 10% under either system.

Quote:

I have a better idea... run-off elections

We already have those. You just don't realise it. It still does not guarantee majority rule in a system with single member electorates. PR does.

Quote:

this is not the same as Prop Rep which some call 'instant run-off' but isnt.

True, it is a lot slower, more expensive, and means you have to return to the polls.

Quote:

then with a genuine two-man race

What if the first election gives you 3 candidates with about 30% of the vote each?

Quote:

so only 10 times a year instead of the current once every three years? you are still demanding and exceptionally high input by an already jaded electorate.

There is no demand. You can vote once every ten years if you prefer. It is up to you how involved you get. This is the benefit of voting by delegable proxy.

Quote:

and what will actually take place is that about 10% will take interest and the rest will register their preference and not change it from one decade to the next.

You are not making any sense GM. I think you should read it again.

Quote:

Is it possible for a party to gain the most primary votes, yet lose the election?

Yes it is possible under all systems except FPP for a party or candidate with the plurality (most first preference votes) to end up losing.

Quote:

Has this ever happened?

I think it happens regularly. It depends how divided one side of the political spectrum is. That is why the Libs and Nats don;t compete against each other, even with rpeferential voting. At the moment with Labor and the Greens competing against each other directly, many of the victorious Labor canddiates probably have fewer first preference votes than the competing Lib or Nat candidate.

FD it is perfectly possible under First Past The Post for a party to gain the most votes nationwide, yet be soundly defeated in the election. This happened several times in NZ.

it is exactly what happened in 2010 here. the Coalition gained 500,000 more votes than labor.

FD's system is horribly complicated and would be a far worse system than currently. Frankly, it doesnt even make sense. it seeks to remove elections and require MPs to be nothing more than vote casters .

and FD. you STILL havent told me how you expect execuitve govt to be formed when there are no elections.

FD it is perfectly possible under First Past The Post for a party to gain the most votes nationwide, yet be soundly defeated in the election. This happened several times in NZ.

Yes. But not on the level of an individual electorate.

Under FPP you could theoretically win with less than 1% of the vote.

[quote]This could also happen under PR, but only if the most popular party cannot form a coalition or minority government. That is technically possible, but unlikely.

Actually I think it would be highly likely under PR, given the number of parties represented.

FD, it's not the indivual seats that concern me. It's the final result.

When a system allows one party to govern when it receives fewer votes than another party that system is rotten and needs to be changed.

In NZ a group of concerned citizens with very little money started a campaign for PR. they were opposed by business interests, with wads of cash, and beat them

Kiwis voted first for PR, then for the current system of MMP. And last year, they voted to keep it. Sensible people we Kiwis.

Under MMP parties can stand candidates in seats, but also provide a party list of candidates numbered in order of party preference.

Electors get two votes - one for their local MP, who is elected by FPP. The other vote, and by far the most important one, is for the party they want to govern.

The percentage of the party vote determines how many seats each party gets in Parliament. If this is more than the seats they have won, then their total is added to from people on the list.

It's not a perfect system, but it works and is much fairer that FPP or preferences.[/quote]

Hopw does this work with parties forming coalitions? Most PR systems tend to end up with nobody getting an absolute majority which I find unacceptable to good government. Just as we have seen in our current minorty govt, Gillard has been forced into a variety of daft polcies (plus the carbon tax) all to appease minorities.

It removes the need for elections, but you could still have them if you enjoy wasting the Saturday morning of every Australian adult.

Quote:

and require MPs to be nothing more than vote casters

They still need to come up with the bills to vote on, but when it comes to voting you are right - they do not represent their own views or the views of a party, but the views of the voters.

Quote:

you STILL havent told me how you expect execuitve govt to be formed when there are no elections

The same way they are in every other system. You just need to get a group that represents over 50% of the population. The only difference between this and other systems is that it does not require 50% of sitting members to be in that group.

Quote:

When a system allows one party to govern when it receives fewer votes than another party that system is rotten and needs to be changed.

Can you be more specific? Are you talking about first preference votes, or the 2PP votes under a preferential system? Or is this a mangled way of criticising coalition governments?

Quote:

It's not a perfect system, but it works and is much fairer that FPP or preferences.

The problem I have with what you described is that local members are elected on a FPP basis. Perhaps that is necessary in order to get MMP without adding a huge number of extra seats. Some people think their local rep is important. If the majority of your electorate thinks another candidate should have gotten in instead, the majority should have their way.

Quote:

Most PR systems tend to end up with nobody getting an absolute majority which I find unacceptable to good government.

Why is it unacceptable? It is an artificial concentration of power in the hands of a minority. It happens regularly in Australia under our current system. The Liberal party rarely gets an absolute majority without the Nats. Combining these two parties like they did in QLD is a bad thing for democracy, because it reduces voter choice - it is probably the main cause of Katter's success.

Quote:

Just as we have seen in our current minorty govt, Gillard has been forced into a variety of daft polcies (plus the carbon tax) all to appease minorities.

She was not forced. There is always a choice. People who complain about this seem to forget that the major party has a lot to loose in making such deals and there is a clear path for the public to punish them.

FD, of course I am talking about first preferences. I find a system that gives your vote to someone you don't want to win antiquated.

In researching this, I found an election where FIFTH preferences had to be counted to get a result! If there were only five people in the race, then some votes went to the candidate voters wanted least.

This system cannot be tinkered with, it should be thrown into the dustbin of history where it belongs. It was only dreamed up because in the 1930s two conservative parties split the vote and let Labor win a particular seat.

It removes the need for elections, but you could still have them if you enjoy wasting the Saturday morning of every Australian adult.

[quote]and require MPs to be nothing more than vote casters

They still need to come up with the bills to vote on, but when it comes to voting you are right - they do not represent their own views or the views of a party, but the views of the voters.

Quote:

you STILL havent told me how you expect execuitve govt to be formed when there are no elections

The same way they are in every other system. You just need to get a group that represents over 50% of the population. The only difference between this and other systems is that it does not require 50% of sitting members to be in that group.

Quote:

When a system allows one party to govern when it receives fewer votes than another party that system is rotten and needs to be changed.

Can you be more specific? Are you talking about first preference votes, or the 2PP votes under a preferential system? Or is this a mangled way of criticising coalition governments?

Quote:

It's not a perfect system, but it works and is much fairer that FPP or preferences.

The problem I have with what you described is that local members are elected on a FPP basis. Perhaps that is necessary in order to get MMP without adding a huge number of extra seats. Some people think their local rep is important. If the majority of your electorate thinks another candidate should have gotten in instead, the majority should have their way.

Quote:

Most PR systems tend to end up with nobody getting an absolute majority which I find unacceptable to good government.

Why is it unacceptable? It is an artificial concentration of power in the hands of a minority. It happens regularly in Australia under our current system. The Liberal party rarely gets an absolute majority without the Nats. Combining these two parties like they did in QLD is a bad thing for democracy, because it reduces voter choice - it is probably the main cause of Katter's success.

Quote:

Just as we have seen in our current minorty govt, Gillard has been forced into a variety of daft polcies (plus the carbon tax) all to appease minorities.

She was not forced. There is always a choice. People who complain about this seem to forget that the major party has a lot to loose in making such deals and there is a clear path for the public to punish them.[/quote]

this just gets sillier as it gets along. so now you are proposing that govt be formed by a minority of MPs? The more you detail this idea the sloppier it becomes. There is a good reason why nobody on the planet has anything even approximating this idea. it is full of holes and depends onthe involvement and passion of the voters - which simply doesnt exist in 90% of the population.

It removes the need for elections, but you could still have them if you enjoy wasting the Saturday morning of every Australian adult.

[quote]and require MPs to be nothing more than vote casters

They still need to come up with the bills to vote on, but when it comes to voting you are right - they do not represent their own views or the views of a party, but the views of the voters.

Quote:

you STILL havent told me how you expect execuitve govt to be formed when there are no elections

The same way they are in every other system. You just need to get a group that represents over 50% of the population. The only difference between this and other systems is that it does not require 50% of sitting members to be in that group.

Quote:

When a system allows one party to govern when it receives fewer votes than another party that system is rotten and needs to be changed.

Can you be more specific? Are you talking about first preference votes, or the 2PP votes under a preferential system? Or is this a mangled way of criticising coalition governments?

Quote:

It's not a perfect system, but it works and is much fairer that FPP or preferences.

The problem I have with what you described is that local members are elected on a FPP basis. Perhaps that is necessary in order to get MMP without adding a huge number of extra seats. Some people think their local rep is important. If the majority of your electorate thinks another candidate should have gotten in instead, the majority should have their way.

Quote:

Most PR systems tend to end up with nobody getting an absolute majority which I find unacceptable to good government.

Why is it unacceptable? It is an artificial concentration of power in the hands of a minority. It happens regularly in Australia under our current system. The Liberal party rarely gets an absolute majority without the Nats. Combining these two parties like they did in QLD is a bad thing for democracy, because it reduces voter choice - it is probably the main cause of Katter's success.

Quote:

Just as we have seen in our current minorty govt, Gillard has been forced into a variety of daft polcies (plus the carbon tax) all to appease minorities.

She was not forced. There is always a choice. People who complain about this seem to forget that the major party has a lot to loose in making such deals and there is a clear path for the public to punish them.[/quote]

the single highlighted phrase is all anyone needs to dispense with your proposal. 'eliminates elections'. it really doesnt get any less democratic than that.

I find a system that gives your vote to someone you don't want to win antiquated.

Preferential voting never does that. This is a common misunderstanding.

Quote:

In researching this, I found an election where FIFTH preferences had to be counted to get a result!

Sure, if it goes down to the wire, then all preferences need to be distributed - how many merely depends on how many candidates there are.

Quote:

If there were only five people in the race, then some votes went to the candidate voters wanted least.

This is never possible.

Quote:

this just gets sillier as it gets along. so now you are proposing that govt be formed by a minority of MPs?

Sure. Why is that so silly? Under the proposals MPs do not have equal weighting. Some may have 10 times the voting power of current MPs. You appear to be confusing this with minority government under our current system. The MPs that form government, whether they are a minority or majority of MPs, would have to have majority power in the house and be able to rule.

Quote:

it is full of holes and depends onthe involvement and passion of the voters

You keep making vague statements along these lines, but you are wrong. I have no idea why you are wrong. Perhaps you should elaborate on why you think it depends on involvement of voters. It could depend less on voter involvement than our current system.

Quote:

That doesnt mean that a mandate isnt there, but rather that it is impossible to prove in the Special Olympics voting system.

What do you mean by 'impossible to prove'?

Quote:

the single highlighted phrase is all anyone needs to dispense with your proposal. 'eliminates elections'. it really doesnt get any less democratic than that.

You are confused GM. People still vote under the proposal. You can even have elections where everyone has to vote on the same day. The point is, it is not necessary.

The problem with preferential voting is that each preference counts for one vote if the votes were redistributed for any reason. I don't think that necessarily reflects the intention of the voter.

What if the second preference was worth half as much as the first preference, and the third preference was worth half as much as the second preference, so that by the time you get down to 5th preferences, the vote is only worth 0.0625 of a vote?

I don't believe that anyone who voted for somebody as a 5th preference had any intention of giving them much of a vote, let alone a whole vote.

At least this way, it better reflects the intention of the voter.

As far as voting by delegatable proxy is concerned, you wouldn't get much participation.

Title: Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Post by John Smith on Jan 15th, 2013 at 9:03pm

I think the biggest problem is who becomes accountable to whom? Take health ... if on every major issue , the health ministers proxy changes to a new player, who takes responsibility for health? You cannot change ministers every few months or nothing gets done.

The problem with preferential voting is that each preference counts for one vote if the votes were redistributed for any reason. I don't think that necessarily reflects the intention of the voter.

What do you think their intention would be? That their opinion should count for less?

Quote:

What if the second preference was worth half as much as the first preference

Then you would introduce all of the problems with FPTP, to half the extent.

Quote:

I don't believe that anyone who voted for somebody as a 5th preference had any intention of giving them much of a vote, let alone a whole vote.

I do quite often, and it is my intention that my vote ends up with them if my other preferences are exhausted. You miss the point Muso that if people do vote in such a way than many of their early preferences get exhausted, it is going to be bleeding obvious to them that this is likely to happen.

Quote:

As far as voting by delegatable proxy is concerned, you wouldn't get much participation.

You would get as much participation as the current system. One of the benefits over direct democracy (with which you appear to have it confused) is that it achieves the same outcome without the burden of participation.

Quote:

if on every major issue , the health ministers proxy changes to a new player

There seems to be a bit of confusion over the technical details of how this works, so I have updated the introduction to the article:

Voting by delegable proxy is a form of direct democracy that allows the entire voting population to vote on each bill before parliament by electing a sitting member to vote on their behalf. Rather than voting directly on a bill, you delegate your vote to a sitting member of parliament who casts your vote on your behalf. You can change your delegate as often as you like and be as active in the political process as you wish. Those who wish to be less involved can keep the same delegate indefinitely, and their delegate will continue to cast votes on their behalf. This would ease the burden of voting as there would be no requirement to make everyone vote regularly and at the same time in order to achieve a parliament that represents the wishes of the people. Alternatively, those who wish to become more involved can change their delegate as often as is necessary to ensure that their vote is cast as they desire.

Rather than sitting members of parliament casting one equal vote each, they cast all the votes of the people who have delegated their vote to them. So a sitting member may represent 1 million voters and thus cast one million votes on their behalf, presumably in the same way (either all in favour of the bill or all opposed). Out of a voting population of 10 million, such a member would hold 10% of the political power in the house. Five or six such members could form government by holding over 50% of the power in the house, and by representing over 50% of eligible voters.

Title: Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Post by John Smith on Jan 15th, 2013 at 10:17pm

freediver wrote on Jan 15th, 2013 at 9:53pm:

Quote:

if on every major issue , the health ministers proxy changes to a new player

This whole system is new to me and I'm unsure how it works, but didn't you say earlier if one representative losses the proxy of the majority, the person with the highest % of proxies becomes the new respresentatives ... what happens if that person happens to be a minister with a portofolio? For example, if when, say Nicola Roxon, looses the proxy of the majority when she first announces the plain packaging legislation because the public decides they don't want to do that, don't we than need a new health minister? It seems you have the potential to chop and change on every major issue

Title: Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Post by John Smith on Jan 15th, 2013 at 10:23pm

freediver wrote on Jan 15th, 2013 at 10:20pm:

You should read the update I posted just above your post.

SO you have to choose one of the current MP's as your proxy on each issue? In that case we still need to hold general elections don't we? Didn't I read earlier there will be no need to hold general elections ?

I think I'm missing something .... I'll have to go through the whole thread again tomorrow to see if it makes more sense ...

SO you have to choose one of the current MP's as your proxy on each issue?

Not necessarily.

Quote:

In that case we still need to hold general elections don't we?

No.

There are several ways to handle the replacement of sitting members of parliament. Basically, whichever member has fewest votes is at risk of getting replaced by an aspiring candidate with more votes. I didn't go into detail because there are a lot of different ways to handle it. Some options for achieving this in practice are:

1) 'Preferential' delegation - you can delegate your vote to someone who is not a sitting member, provided you give another preference to someone who is. If the aspiring candidate has more first preference votes than the worst performing sitting member, he replaces them. In practice, a second preference would be a good idea in case your delegate retires or dies suddenly.

2) Redelegation - you can delegate your vote to someone who is not a sitting member, but until they achieve membership they must redelegate your vote to a sitting member. Under this system, there could be many more people holding blocks of votes, and the only real difference that being a sitting member makes is that you get paid. Again, as soon as the aspiring member has more delegated votes than the worst performing sitting member, he replaces them.

All this happens at the small end of town. If we assume the house has only 20 members, they would have 4% of votes each on average. In practice, some would have 10% or 20%, and the tail enders would have far less than 1% of the vote each. Coalitions would most likely form with stable members or members with high percentages of the votes. Thus, replacement of an MP is unlikely to change the balance of power, especially when you consider that the same people are voting and their votes will most likely be redelgated to people who will vote the same way.

You say it is impossible for my vote to go to some candidate I don't want to win.

Okay, say there are five candidates. I want number five to win so I rate him my first preference. He finishes last so my vote is transferred to my second preference, say number four. But I didn't want four to win, I wanted five. So how can you say my vote cannot go to someone I didn't support?

Second issue: look at my example where 5 preferences had to be used to get a result. If the winning candidate was my lowest preference, then haven't I voted for the candidate I least wanted to win?

Okay, say there are five candidates. I want number five to win so I rate him my first preference. He finishes last so my vote is transferred to my second preference, say number four. But I didn't want four to win, I wanted five.

Out of a pool of four candidates, you want number 4 to win. You get your wish. This is no different to if you turned up at the polls and there were only 4 candidates on the ballot paper, especially when you consider that your first preference had no hope of winning. The Americans call it instant runoff voting, because that is what it is - a series of elections with a decreasing pool of candidates.

Quote:

Second issue: look at my example where 5 preferences had to be used to get a result. If the winning candidate was my lowest preference, then haven't I voted for the candidate I least wanted to win?

No. In this case the final runoff election would be between your least preferred candidate and some other candidate. Your vote would be with that other candidate, against your least preferred candidate. You don't 'win' but your vote is represented exactly how you intended.

Another question: Do you have to mark preferences, or can you just vote for one candidate?

We have just been discussing the current preferential voting system. Perhaps that is the reason for much of the confusion - we have also been discussing the merits of FPP, preferential, PR and MMR systems.

I will assume that your question refers to voting by delegable proxy:

You can design it however you want. Obviously your vote needs to end up somewhere. However, even combining it with compulsory voting is not absolutely necessary - that is a separate issue.

You could for example allow people to vote directly on a bill, rather than using their delegate, if they wanted to. You could allow aspiring members do this with blocks of proxy votes under some of the alternatives I put forward.

I would be in favour of making at least some preferences mandatory, just for practical reasons - eg if your first preference has a heart attack. However this is not the same concept as our current preferential voting system, although it is very similar in the case where your first preference is not (yet) a sitting member.

It depends what state you are in. It is called optional preferential voting, though 'compulsory-optional' is a more representative term. I think QLD and NSW use it for state elections. It introduces some problems, because preferential voting is essentially a series of runoff elections, so you end up with compulsory votes competing against optional ones.

There seems to be a bit of confusion over the technical details of how this works, so I have updated the introduction to the article:

Voting by delegable proxy is a form of direct democracy that allows the entire voting population to vote on each bill before parliament by electing a sitting member to vote on their behalf. Rather than voting directly on a bill, you delegate your vote to a sitting member of parliament who casts your vote on your behalf. You can change your delegate as often as you like and be as active in the political process as you wish. Those who wish to be less involved can keep the same delegate indefinitely, and their delegate will continue to cast votes on their behalf. This would ease the burden of voting as there would be no requirement to make everyone vote regularly and at the same time in order to achieve a parliament that represents the wishes of the people. Alternatively, those who wish to become more involved can change their delegate as often as is necessary to ensure that their vote is cast as they desire.

Rather than sitting members of parliament casting one equal vote each, they cast all the votes of the people who have delegated their vote to them. So a sitting member may represent 1 million voters and thus cast one million votes on their behalf, presumably in the same way (either all in favour of the bill or all opposed). Out of a voting population of 10 million, such a member would hold 10% of the political power in the house. Five or six such members could form government by holding over 50% of the power in the house, and by representing over 50% of eligible voters.

you seem to have missed a rather vital point. what if for every bill that comes up for debate you need to change your delegate? the chances of an MP agreeing with someone all the time is limited. and if enough people felt the same then an MP could be in and out and in and out every few weeks. That would be rather useles if that MP happend to be and MP or minister.

It isnt so much that the idea is daft, but rather that it is absolutely impractical and requires a far, far higher level of involvement from an already apathetic electorate. Failing that it becomes nothing more than a minority groups plaything and govt is rendered ineffective.

give me optional Preferential and I think most objections are covered. My only other problem with preferential is when a primary vote leader is overtaken in the end by someone 10+% behind. I think that is wrong. The notion of a sceond preference having equal weight to a first is inequitable and incorect. The simplistic notion that preferences are actually genuine is also rather ludicrous. with 80% of voters voting off the party plan and parties choosing their preferences strategically rather than ethically, it renders most preferences many things, but certianly not a real view of the electorate.

Thats why if we must have 'run-off' then dont use this system. NOBODY thinks of preferential voting as run-offs.

what if for every bill that comes up for debate you need to change your delegate?

Then you change your delegate. Or don;t bother. It is your choice. Though it seems unlikely as there are only two possible ways to vote on each bill (excluding abstention), and a lot of members to cast their vote one way or the other, so there is going to be quite a few who vote your way into the forseeable future. In any case, even it is does not turn out to be perfect, it is a hell of a lot better than the current system, which only lets you change your mind once every few years and only gives you two effective choices anyway.

Quote:

the chances of an MP agreeing with someone all the time is limited

Actually I think it is quite high. Remember, the house will not be dominated by two parties, but by a variety of members with different platforms. If you want more choice, increase the number of members. Also, there is usually only about one bill per year that the majority take a real interest in.

Quote:

and if enough people felt the same then an MP could be in and out and in and out every few weeks

I have included provisions for this in the article. I should have it online soon. A member on the verge of ejection is hardly going to be appointed to a ministerial position.

Quote:

It isnt so much that the idea is daft, but rather that it is absolutely impractical and requires a far, far higher level of involvement from an already apathetic electorate.

It does not require it at all. In fact it requires less involvement than the current system. You are confusing the fact that it permits more involvement with requiring this involvement. Compare this with our current system, where you are stuck with the same candidate for many years, and if you don't like how he votes, there is nothing you can do about it. Even worse, the majority of the population do not even support their representative. They disagree with him before he even gets into parliament. To make it even worse, when your 3 or 4 year sentence is up, guess how much say you have then? None, because the same fool gets back in again.

Also, permitting more involvement will actually make the community less apathetic.

Quote:

Failing that it becomes nothing more than a minority groups plaything and govt is rendered ineffective.

How so? It is still only one vote each. No minority can force the majority to vote their way, because ultimately it comes down to how the people vote, not how the politicians vote. The people will withdraw their support from mainstream candidates in droves if they start supporting the wrong things. There is a level of accountability there that does not exist in our current system. That is the benefit of the system.

Quote:

The notion of a sceond preference having equal weight to a first is inequitable and incorrect.

No it isn't. It is the principle of one person, one vote.

Quote:

Thats why if we must have 'run-off' then dont use this system. NOBODY thinks of preferential voting as run-offs.

That is because they misunderstand the system. But in reality, that is what it is.

what if for every bill that comes up for debate you need to change your delegate?

Then you change your delegate. Or don;t bother. It is your choice. Though it seems unlikely as there are only two possible ways to vote on each bill (excluding abstention), and a lot of members to cast their vote one way or the other, so there is going to be quite a few who vote your way into the forseeable future. In any case, even it is does not turn out to be perfect, it is a hell of a lot better than the current system, which only lets you change your mind once every few years and only gives you two effective choices anyway.

[quote]the chances of an MP agreeing with someone all the time is limited

Actually I think it is quite high. Remember, the house will not be dominated by two parties, but by a variety of members with different platforms. If you want more choice, increase the number of members. Also, there is usually only about one bill per year that the majority take a real interest in.

Quote:

and if enough people felt the same then an MP could be in and out and in and out every few weeks

I have included provisions for this in the article. I should have it online soon. A member on the verge of ejection is hardly going to be appointed to a ministerial position.

Quote:

It isnt so much that the idea is daft, but rather that it is absolutely impractical and requires a far, far higher level of involvement from an already apathetic electorate.

It does not require it at all. In fact it requires less involvement than the current system. You are confusing the fact that it permits more involvement with requiring this involvement. Compare this with our current system, where you are stuck with the same candidate for many years, and if you don't like how he votes, there is nothing you can do about it. Even worse, the majority of the population do not even support their representative. They disagree with him before he even gets into parliament. To make it even worse, when your 3 or 4 year sentence is up, guess how much say you have then? None, because the same fool gets back in again.

Also, permitting more involvement will actually make the community less apathetic.

Quote:

Failing that it becomes nothing more than a minority groups plaything and govt is rendered ineffective.

How so? It is still only one vote each. No minority can force the majority to vote their way, because ultimately it comes down to how the people vote, not how the politicians vote. The people will withdraw their support from mainstream candidates in droves if they start supporting the wrong things. There is a level of accountability there that does not exist in our current system. That is the benefit of the system.

Quote:

The notion of a sceond preference having equal weight to a first is inequitable and incorrect.

No it isn't. It is the principle of one person, one vote.

Quote:

Thats why if we must have 'run-off' then dont use this system. NOBODY thinks of preferential voting as run-offs.

That is because they misunderstand the system. But in reality, that is what it is.[/quote]

FD I would normally consider you are fairly bright person, but this idea is dumb for about 100 reasons - none of which you understand. Who in their right mind would want to be an MP under this system? They have no say in how they vote. they have no career path because it could be cut sort every couple weeks and the only people driving policy agendas would be minorities.

Gve it up FD. Nice try but the concept is too flawed to even be considered. You have such a love of minorities you would do anything to ensure they get their unfair say. the idea scores 1/100 and that one is only for originality. BTW a dictatorship scores 2. at least under that system there would be an actual govt.

You make this claim just about every single post. I ask you to explain every single time. You never do. Can you explain why you think this? It makes no sense. Our current system is far more likely to allow a minority to dictate policy than voting by delegable proxy (and ours is pretty good by international standards). It is pretty much the opposite of what you claim - this system ensures that it is the majority that decides.

Quote:

You have such a love of minorities you would do anything to ensure they get their unfair say.

You make this claim just about every single post. I ask you to explain every single time. You never do. Can you explain why you think this? It makes no sense. Our current system is far more likely to allow a minority to dictate policy than voting by delegable proxy (and ours is pretty good by international standards). It is pretty much the opposite of what you claim - this system ensures that it is the majority that decides.

[quote]You have such a love of minorities you would do anything to ensure they get their unfair say.

Why do you think they would have an unfair say?[/quote]

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes. the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin. all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins. stop trying to give an artifical leg-up to some trassexual gay polygamy party candidate who gets 1% of the vote and you seem to think deserves representation. you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

as I said in the last post - points for originality and effort but it is a disaster with more holes than swiss cheese.

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes

This does the opposite. It removes one of the key reasons for the existence of parties.

Quote:

the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin.

You appear to think that some wierd concept of 'fairness' towards politicians is more important than representing the will of the people. Democracy is not intended to place politicians above everyone else.

Quote:

all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Are you saying you want to take a step backwards to first past the post voting systems?

Quote:

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins.

How about representing the will of the people? Is that too complicated for you?

Quote:

you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

No I don't. I have repeatedly explained why you are wrong about this. It seems you are impervious to logic. Remember, I am the one promoting the idea that the majority should dictate policy. You are the one arguing that a well organised minority should have preference.

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes

This does the opposite. It removes one of the key reasons for the existence of parties.

[quote]the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin.

You appear to think that some wierd concept of 'fairness' towards politicians is more important than representing the will of the people. Democracy is not intended to place politicians above everyone else.

Quote:

all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Are you saying you want to take a step backwards to first past the post voting systems?

Quote:

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins.

How about representing the will of the people? Is that too complicated for you?

Quote:

you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

No I don't. I have repeatedly explained why you are wrong about this. It seems you are impervious to logic. Remember, I am the one promoting the idea that the majority should dictate policy. You are the one arguing that a well organised minority should have preference.[/quote]

what makes you think that parties are something intrinsically undemocratic and should be gotten rid of? IN a Utopian and utterly theoretical world you might have a point but in the real world, people clump together into groups that share similar beliefs and values eg PARTIES. any attempt to get rid of their influence is pointless and will continue to exist as long as people continue to gather in groups (ie forever).

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes

This does the opposite. It removes one of the key reasons for the existence of parties.

[quote]the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin.

You appear to think that some wierd concept of 'fairness' towards politicians is more important than representing the will of the people. Democracy is not intended to place politicians above everyone else.

Quote:

all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Are you saying you want to take a step backwards to first past the post voting systems?

Quote:

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins.

How about representing the will of the people? Is that too complicated for you?

Quote:

you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

No I don't. I have repeatedly explained why you are wrong about this. It seems you are impervious to logic. Remember, I am the one promoting the idea that the majority should dictate policy. You are the one arguing that a well organised minority should have preference.[/quote]

'fairness' is not some concept that is universally agreed on. I for one dont think it is even remotely fair that the person who fell over and came third in a race ends up with the gold medal. while it might be debatable in a race where first and second were seperated by a head, but when the first to break the tape is already in the showers before another runner crosses the line an is still not declared the winer - that is unequivocably unfair.

So dont pretend that 'fair' is defined by you (or me). it is a great deal more complex than that and in a real democracy the will of the people is what counts - which is not the same a a how-to-vote card given to the unaware masses.

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes

This does the opposite. It removes one of the key reasons for the existence of parties.

[quote]the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin.

You appear to think that some wierd concept of 'fairness' towards politicians is more important than representing the will of the people. Democracy is not intended to place politicians above everyone else.

Quote:

all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Are you saying you want to take a step backwards to first past the post voting systems?

Quote:

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins.

How about representing the will of the people? Is that too complicated for you?

Quote:

you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

No I don't. I have repeatedly explained why you are wrong about this. It seems you are impervious to logic. Remember, I am the one promoting the idea that the majority should dictate policy. You are the one arguing that a well organised minority should have preference.[/quote]

compared to your solution, YES. Im a fan of the preferential system but I believe there should be a modification that eliminates a candidate if they are more than 10% behind the primary vote winner. In most cases the results are fair but it is never fair when someone gets 48% of the vote and is defeated by someone with 25%. dont bother arguing the point. these are the situations that show the weaknesses of preferential voting.

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes

This does the opposite. It removes one of the key reasons for the existence of parties.

[quote]the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin.

You appear to think that some wierd concept of 'fairness' towards politicians is more important than representing the will of the people. Democracy is not intended to place politicians above everyone else.

Quote:

all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Are you saying you want to take a step backwards to first past the post voting systems?

Quote:

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins.

How about representing the will of the people? Is that too complicated for you?

Quote:

you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

No I don't. I have repeatedly explained why you are wrong about this. It seems you are impervious to logic. Remember, I am the one promoting the idea that the majority should dictate policy. You are the one arguing that a well organised minority should have preference.[/quote]

nice try but you are so wrong it is a little silly. the system you propose is completely and utterly unworkable. no elections, no govt that would be guaranteed of remaining longer than a few weeks and no MP would both taking on the job unless they wanted a 4week holiday job which is all their 'term' would be.

what makes you think that parties are something intrinsically undemocratic and should be gotten rid of?

I don't. I think what you are promoting is inherently undemocratic. It is you who keeps putting the aspirations of political parties ahead of democracy.

Quote:

IN a Utopian and utterly theoretical world you might have a point but in the real world, people clump together into groups that share similar beliefs and values eg PARTIES.

Not everyone does. Most people prefer to think for themselves. Clumping into parties is largely a response to the flaws in our system, not something fundamental to human nature, and certain not something that needs your protection.

Quote:

any attempt to get rid of their influence is pointless and will continue to exist as long as people continue to gather in groups (ie forever)

I am not trying to get rid of them.

Quote:

'fairness' is not some concept that is universally agreed on. I for one dont think it is even remotely fair that the person who fell over and came third in a race ends up with the gold medal. while it might be debatable in a race where first and second were seperated by a head, but when the first to break the tape is already in the showers before another runner crosses the line an is still not declared the winer - that is unequivocably unfair.

I am not debating your concept of fairness, no matter how vacuus it is. Rather I am questioning the relevance of fairness. Democracy is not about the rights of politicians or fairness to politicians. It is about representing the people. By harping on about winners and gold medals and fairness you are completely missing the point. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this point.

Quote:

So dont pretend that 'fair' is defined by you (or me). it is a great deal more complex than that and in a real democracy the will of the people is what counts

So why do you reject the will of the people and replace it with you absurd concepts of fairness to politicians?

Quote:

nice try but you are so wrong it is a little silly. the system you propose is completely and utterly unworkable. no elections

Earlier you were complaining about constant elections. You go from one extreme to the other. The only consistency is that you are confused.

Quote:

no govt that would be guaranteed of remaining longer than a few weeks

IF the people want a stable government they will get it. If they want a new government they will get it. What is guaranteed is that the outcome reflects the will of the people.

Quote:

and no MP would both taking on the job unless they wanted a 4week holiday job which is all their 'term' would be

You are wrong about that too. In fact this is another advantage of this system over other systems. The more popular MPs would have far more stable jobs than under the current system. Howard for example would not have lost his seat on the same day he lost the prime ministership.

Quote:

it simply does not work

Can I at least ask that you make some effort to understand how it works before passing judgement on whether it will work? You have been dissing the idea from the beginning, before you had any clue at all what it even was, apparently before you even read it. You got some strange idea in your head that it is bad because of minor parties or some other silly reason and stopped thinking. If you put half as much effort into trying to understand it as you put into making up stupid arguments against it you would realise that it is actually quite a simple and effective system.

what makes you think that parties are something intrinsically undemocratic and should be gotten rid of?

I don't. I think what you are promoting is inherently undemocratic. It is you who keeps putting the aspirations of political parties ahead of democracy.

[quote]IN a Utopian and utterly theoretical world you might have a point but in the real world, people clump together into groups that share similar beliefs and values eg PARTIES.

Not everyone does. Most people prefer to think for themselves. Clumping into parties is largely a response to the flaws in our system, not something fundamental to human nature, and certain not something that needs your protection.

Quote:

any attempt to get rid of their influence is pointless and will continue to exist as long as people continue to gather in groups (ie forever)

I am not trying to get rid of them.

Quote:

'fairness' is not some concept that is universally agreed on. I for one dont think it is even remotely fair that the person who fell over and came third in a race ends up with the gold medal. while it might be debatable in a race where first and second were seperated by a head, but when the first to break the tape is already in the showers before another runner crosses the line an is still not declared the winer - that is unequivocably unfair.

I am not debating your concept of fairness, no matter how vacuus it is. Rather I am questioning the relevance of fairness. Democracy is not about the rights of politicians or fairness to politicians. It is about representing the people. By harping on about winners and gold medals and fairness you are completely missing the point. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this point.

Quote:

So dont pretend that 'fair' is defined by you (or me). it is a great deal more complex than that and in a real democracy the will of the people is what counts

So why do you reject the will of the people and replace it with you absurd concepts of fairness to politicians?

Quote:

nice try but you are so wrong it is a little silly. the system you propose is completely and utterly unworkable. no elections

Earlier you were complaining about constant elections. You go from one extreme to the other. The only consistency is that you are confused.

Quote:

no govt that would be guaranteed of remaining longer than a few weeks

IF the people want a stable government they will get it. If they want a new government they will get it. What is guaranteed is that the outcome reflects the will of the people.

Quote:

and no MP would both taking on the job unless they wanted a 4week holiday job which is all their 'term' would be

You are wrong about that too. In fact this is another advantage of this system over other systems. The more popular MPs would have far more stable jobs than under the current system. Howard for example would not have lost his seat on the same day he lost the prime ministership.

Quote:

it simply does not work

Can I at least ask that you make some effort to understand how it works before passing judgement on whether it will work? You have been dissing the idea from the beginning, before you had any clue at all what it even was, apparently before you even read it. You got some strange idea in your head that it is bad because of minor parties or some other silly reason and stopped thinking. If you put half as much effort into trying to understand it as you put into making up stupid arguments against it you would realise that it is actually quite a simple and effective system.[/quote]

the highlighted bit probably is the real clue as to why you think your model is a good one. You belive intrinsically in the inteliigence and individual thinking of people... to quote from my fav movie (Galaxy Quest).. "What are you? an infant?" As a rule people do not think on every topic. they absorb opinoins from others in their peer group except in matters of their deepest importance. Thats how real life operates. Voting is the same. There is very little real thiking that goes on. Even swinging voters are not really thinkers. They are mainly either people who will vote for whoevers offers them the most reward or the group that changes their mind regularly for little real reason.

You are overthinking this and trying to imagine everyone is like you and actually cares about govts and policy. if everyone did that your model MIGHT have a chance but in the absence of that, no chance at all.

what makes you think that parties are something intrinsically undemocratic and should be gotten rid of?

I don't. I think what you are promoting is inherently undemocratic. It is you who keeps putting the aspirations of political parties ahead of democracy.

[quote]IN a Utopian and utterly theoretical world you might have a point but in the real world, people clump together into groups that share similar beliefs and values eg PARTIES.

Not everyone does. Most people prefer to think for themselves. Clumping into parties is largely a response to the flaws in our system, not something fundamental to human nature, and certain not something that needs your protection.

Quote:

any attempt to get rid of their influence is pointless and will continue to exist as long as people continue to gather in groups (ie forever)

I am not trying to get rid of them.

Quote:

'fairness' is not some concept that is universally agreed on. I for one dont think it is even remotely fair that the person who fell over and came third in a race ends up with the gold medal. while it might be debatable in a race where first and second were seperated by a head, but when the first to break the tape is already in the showers before another runner crosses the line an is still not declared the winer - that is unequivocably unfair.

I am not debating your concept of fairness, no matter how vacuus it is. Rather I am questioning the relevance of fairness. Democracy is not about the rights of politicians or fairness to politicians. It is about representing the people. By harping on about winners and gold medals and fairness you are completely missing the point. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this point.

Quote:

So dont pretend that 'fair' is defined by you (or me). it is a great deal more complex than that and in a real democracy the will of the people is what counts

So why do you reject the will of the people and replace it with you absurd concepts of fairness to politicians?

Quote:

nice try but you are so wrong it is a little silly. the system you propose is completely and utterly unworkable. no elections

Earlier you were complaining about constant elections. You go from one extreme to the other. The only consistency is that you are confused.

Quote:

no govt that would be guaranteed of remaining longer than a few weeks

IF the people want a stable government they will get it. If they want a new government they will get it. What is guaranteed is that the outcome reflects the will of the people.

Quote:

and no MP would both taking on the job unless they wanted a 4week holiday job which is all their 'term' would be

You are wrong about that too. In fact this is another advantage of this system over other systems. The more popular MPs would have far more stable jobs than under the current system. Howard for example would not have lost his seat on the same day he lost the prime ministership.

Quote:

it simply does not work

Can I at least ask that you make some effort to understand how it works before passing judgement on whether it will work? You have been dissing the idea from the beginning, before you had any clue at all what it even was, apparently before you even read it. You got some strange idea in your head that it is bad because of minor parties or some other silly reason and stopped thinking. If you put half as much effort into trying to understand it as you put into making up stupid arguments against it you would realise that it is actually quite a simple and effective system.[/quote]

what makes you think that parties are something intrinsically undemocratic and should be gotten rid of?

I don't. I think what you are promoting is inherently undemocratic. It is you who keeps putting the aspirations of political parties ahead of democracy.

[quote]IN a Utopian and utterly theoretical world you might have a point but in the real world, people clump together into groups that share similar beliefs and values eg PARTIES.

Not everyone does. Most people prefer to think for themselves. Clumping into parties is largely a response to the flaws in our system, not something fundamental to human nature, and certain not something that needs your protection.

Quote:

any attempt to get rid of their influence is pointless and will continue to exist as long as people continue to gather in groups (ie forever)

I am not trying to get rid of them.

Quote:

'fairness' is not some concept that is universally agreed on. I for one dont think it is even remotely fair that the person who fell over and came third in a race ends up with the gold medal. while it might be debatable in a race where first and second were seperated by a head, but when the first to break the tape is already in the showers before another runner crosses the line an is still not declared the winer - that is unequivocably unfair.

I am not debating your concept of fairness, no matter how vacuus it is. Rather I am questioning the relevance of fairness. Democracy is not about the rights of politicians or fairness to politicians. It is about representing the people. By harping on about winners and gold medals and fairness you are completely missing the point. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this point.

Quote:

So dont pretend that 'fair' is defined by you (or me). it is a great deal more complex than that and in a real democracy the will of the people is what counts

So why do you reject the will of the people and replace it with you absurd concepts of fairness to politicians?

Quote:

nice try but you are so wrong it is a little silly. the system you propose is completely and utterly unworkable. no elections

Earlier you were complaining about constant elections. You go from one extreme to the other. The only consistency is that you are confused.

Quote:

no govt that would be guaranteed of remaining longer than a few weeks

IF the people want a stable government they will get it. If they want a new government they will get it. What is guaranteed is that the outcome reflects the will of the people.

Quote:

and no MP would both taking on the job unless they wanted a 4week holiday job which is all their 'term' would be

You are wrong about that too. In fact this is another advantage of this system over other systems. The more popular MPs would have far more stable jobs than under the current system. Howard for example would not have lost his seat on the same day he lost the prime ministership.

Quote:

it simply does not work

Can I at least ask that you make some effort to understand how it works before passing judgement on whether it will work? You have been dissing the idea from the beginning, before you had any clue at all what it even was, apparently before you even read it. You got some strange idea in your head that it is bad because of minor parties or some other silly reason and stopped thinking. If you put half as much effort into trying to understand it as you put into making up stupid arguments against it you would realise that it is actually quite a simple and effective system.[/quote]

now you are just silly. You seem to live in a very unreal world. 'stable govt' is govt that can actually EXIST despite the ebb and flow of popular (and uninformed) opinion. Your system would make it impossible for a govt to make a necessary yet unpopular decision. absolutely and utterly unpopular. Taxes need to be increased??? never happen. taxes lowered to unsustainable levels? pass every time.

what makes you think that parties are something intrinsically undemocratic and should be gotten rid of?

I don't. I think what you are promoting is inherently undemocratic. It is you who keeps putting the aspirations of political parties ahead of democracy.

[quote]IN a Utopian and utterly theoretical world you might have a point but in the real world, people clump together into groups that share similar beliefs and values eg PARTIES.

Not everyone does. Most people prefer to think for themselves. Clumping into parties is largely a response to the flaws in our system, not something fundamental to human nature, and certain not something that needs your protection.

Quote:

any attempt to get rid of their influence is pointless and will continue to exist as long as people continue to gather in groups (ie forever)

I am not trying to get rid of them.

Quote:

'fairness' is not some concept that is universally agreed on. I for one dont think it is even remotely fair that the person who fell over and came third in a race ends up with the gold medal. while it might be debatable in a race where first and second were seperated by a head, but when the first to break the tape is already in the showers before another runner crosses the line an is still not declared the winer - that is unequivocably unfair.

I am not debating your concept of fairness, no matter how vacuus it is. Rather I am questioning the relevance of fairness. Democracy is not about the rights of politicians or fairness to politicians. It is about representing the people. By harping on about winners and gold medals and fairness you are completely missing the point. I am not sure how many different ways I can make this point.

Quote:

So dont pretend that 'fair' is defined by you (or me). it is a great deal more complex than that and in a real democracy the will of the people is what counts

So why do you reject the will of the people and replace it with you absurd concepts of fairness to politicians?

Quote:

nice try but you are so wrong it is a little silly. the system you propose is completely and utterly unworkable. no elections

Earlier you were complaining about constant elections. You go from one extreme to the other. The only consistency is that you are confused.

Quote:

no govt that would be guaranteed of remaining longer than a few weeks

IF the people want a stable government they will get it. If they want a new government they will get it. What is guaranteed is that the outcome reflects the will of the people.

Quote:

and no MP would both taking on the job unless they wanted a 4week holiday job which is all their 'term' would be

You are wrong about that too. In fact this is another advantage of this system over other systems. The more popular MPs would have far more stable jobs than under the current system. Howard for example would not have lost his seat on the same day he lost the prime ministership.

Quote:

it simply does not work

Can I at least ask that you make some effort to understand how it works before passing judgement on whether it will work? You have been dissing the idea from the beginning, before you had any clue at all what it even was, apparently before you even read it. You got some strange idea in your head that it is bad because of minor parties or some other silly reason and stopped thinking. If you put half as much effort into trying to understand it as you put into making up stupid arguments against it you would realise that it is actually quite a simple and effective system.[/quote]

'popular' meaning voting in support of any idiotic plan that may be supported by the handful of idiots that drive the process.

And men of principle like Howard wouldnt last a moment. Can you imagine a GST passing in such a system?

GM, would it be reasonable to say that you have given up criticisng anything specific to my plan and instead have retreated to vague criticisms of the principle of democracy as 'mob rule'?

FD, dont be so arrogant as to assume that I didn't give your concept some consideration. I did. But I found it to be fatally flawed in a large number of areas. Now either take criticism like a grown up or be ignored. I dislike your plan for a multitude of reasons that I have previously identified but largely because it is horribly naive. it requires the commitment of an electorate to take a keen interest in govt policy and not just once every three years but weekly. good luck with that! You seem committed to your anti-party stance even to the extent of pretending that people don't group together naturally despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I think your concept is fatally flawed and there is nothing in it that could be salvaged. Don't put it up for criticism if you don't want it and DO NOT assume that opponents are ignorant fools. I have provided a mountain of reasoning for my opposition. you don't have to like it, but you don't get to be ignorantly dismissive of it either.

FD, dont be so arrogant as to assume that I didn't give your concept some consideration. I did.

It is not an asusmption. There is plenty of evidence in what you have posted that not only did you fail to consider it, you failed to even understand it. You still have not presented anything that indicates you have even read the proposal.

Quote:

it requires the commitment of an electorate to take a keen interest in govt policy

There you go, you are doing it again. I have explained why it does not do this plenty of times, but you appear to think that repeating yourself is a substitute for rational debate.

Quote:

You seem committed to your anti-party stance even to the extent of pretending that people don't group together naturally

I did not say that.

Quote:

Don't put it up for criticism if you don't want it and DO NOT assume that opponents are ignorant fools.

Again, it is not an assumption.

Quote:

I have provided a mountain of reasoning for my opposition.

None of which actually stands up to reason.

Quote:

you don't have to like it, but you don't get to be ignorantly dismissive of it either.

Actually it is you who has been ignorantly dismissive. I have patiently explained why every point you made has been wrong, only for you to repeat it without further thought.

FD, dont be so arrogant as to assume that I didn't give your concept some consideration. I did.

It is not an asusmption. There is plenty of evidence in what you have posted that not only did you fail to consider it, you failed to even understand it. You still have not presented anything that indicates you have even read the proposal.

the 'evidence' you refer to is when i disagree with you. It has probably not yet entered your head that perhaps I read it and found giant flaws in it. It is actually possible for you to be wrong. you know.

[quote]it requires the commitment of an electorate to take a keen interest in govt policy

There you go, you are doing it again. I have explained why it does not do this plenty of times, but you appear to think that repeating yourself is a substitute for rational debate.

you can explain it as often as you like but it still remains no more than your OPINION. it is my opinion that such a model would demand large ommunity involvement to work. That is MY opinion. how about you get with the concept of 'opinion'?

Quote:

You seem committed to your anti-party stance even to the extent of pretending that people don't group together naturally

I did not say that.

You said precisely that. You stated that people dont tend to form groups of social (or political) peers. Frankly, that was pershpas the dumbest thing you've ever said since it is more obviously wrong than the average SOB comment.

Quote:

Don't put it up for criticism if you don't want it and DO NOT assume that opponents are ignorant fools.

Again, it is not an assumption.

Quote:

I have provided a mountain of reasoning for my opposition.

None of which actually stands up to reason.

by YOUR opinion. It may surprise you to know that youa re not the oracle of reason. Other people do it as well. but this 'opinion' thing seems to stymie you. and perhaps if you acknowledged some of the flaws you might get a better reception. Have you noticed everyone else has given up even discussing it with you? Ever wonder why?

Quote:

you don't have to like it, but you don't get to be ignorantly dismissive of it either.

Actually it is you who has been ignorantly dismissive. I have patiently explained why every point you made has been wrong, only for you to repeat it without further thought.[/quote]

yeah... you are always right and I am always wrong - as is everyone else that disagrees with you on this thread. There is a hint there... There are two choices: you are THAT good or... you are that arrogant. I choose the latter.

You make this claim just about every single post. I ask you to explain every single time. You never do. Can you explain why you think this? It makes no sense. Our current system is far more likely to allow a minority to dictate policy than voting by delegable proxy (and ours is pretty good by international standards). It is pretty much the opposite of what you claim - this system ensures that it is the majority that decides.

[quote]You have such a love of minorities you would do anything to ensure they get their unfair say.

Why do you think they would have an unfair say?

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes. the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin. all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins. stop trying to give an artifical leg-up to some trassexual gay polygamy party candidate who gets 1% of the vote and you seem to think deserves representation. you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

as I said in the last post - points for originality and effort but it is a disaster with more holes than swiss cheese.[/quote]

In this post, and many other discussions on this forum, Longy (aka Gold Medal) promotes his view that democracy should not reflect the will of the majority - instead it should reflect his absurd notions of fairness towards political parties above the people they are supposed to represent.

Yet see how he changes his tune in this thread:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:11pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Since when is spinlessly following polls seen as honourable for politicians?

well there's that thing called democracy. you might want to look it up. it means the unassailable RIGHT to determine our own destiny as determined by the majority. it takes no concern over whether or not that destiny is ultimately right or wrong. Democracy is about the right to choose.

...suddenly he is all about the will of the majority, even to the point of rejecting concepts of right and wrong. He goes on to accuse me and others of not respecting and not understanding the concept of the will of the majority. What brought this on of course is not his desire to make a stand on democracy, but to score cheap points on a partisan issue. It is especially galling to see him accuse others of not understanding when he attacked the proposal here over six pages and still does not understand what it is.

You make this claim just about every single post. I ask you to explain every single time. You never do. Can you explain why you think this? It makes no sense. Our current system is far more likely to allow a minority to dictate policy than voting by delegable proxy (and ours is pretty good by international standards). It is pretty much the opposite of what you claim - this system ensures that it is the majority that decides.

[quote]You have such a love of minorities you would do anything to ensure they get their unfair say.

Why do you think they would have an unfair say?

because you continually promote these special olympics types of systems that seek to give representation and power to parties that can scarcely get any votes. the concept of majority is used far too literally by some. if a party scores 48% of the primary vote while its nearest competitor gets 30% then they have won the election fair and square and by a significant margin. all of our ideas want to wring your hands in horror at the 52% who didnt vote for them.

Its really a simple concept in the end. best candidate wins. stop trying to give an artifical leg-up to some trassexual gay polygamy party candidate who gets 1% of the vote and you seem to think deserves representation. you stress about the 52% above but ignore the 99% in this case.

as I said in the last post - points for originality and effort but it is a disaster with more holes than swiss cheese.

In this post, and many other discussions on this forum, Longy (aka Gold Medal) promotes his view that democracy should not reflect the will of the majority - instead it should reflect his absurd notions of fairness towards political parties above the people they are supposed to represent.

Yet see how he changes his tune in this thread:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:11pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Since when is spinlessly following polls seen as honourable for politicians?

well there's that thing called democracy. you might want to look it up. it means the unassailable RIGHT to determine our own destiny as determined by the majority. it takes no concern over whether or not that destiny is ultimately right or wrong. Democracy is about the right to choose.

...suddenly he is all about the will of the majority, even to the point of rejecting concepts of right and wrong. He goes on to accuse me and others of not respecting and not understanding the concept of the will of the majority. What brought this on of course is not his desire to make a stand on democracy, but to score cheap points on a partisan issue. It is especially galling to see him accuse others of not understanding when he attacked the proposal here over six pages and still does not understand what it is.[/quote]

you really can be quite a jerk. I have said nothing of the sort in fact I say quite the opposite. But like all true left-wing zealots/hypocrites anything short of 100% agreement is anathema and so out comes the abuse and name calling.

I support rule of the majority. I define 'majority' differently to you. to me - a majority means more than anyone else

I support rule of the majority. I define 'majority' differently to you. to me - a majority means more than anyone else

Why don't you redefine mandate while you are at it? Oh wait, you just did.

Quote:

I have said nothing of the sort in fact I say quite the opposite.

Of course you say the opposite. It is called contradicting yourself and being a hypocrite, and I don't have to redefine those terms to apply them to you. I can quote you on any of it if you want, so go ahead and pick something you think I am wrong about.

Obviously for a system where you can change your vote at any time there would have to be an IT system that remembers your vote.

If you aren't comfortable with that the concept applies equally well to paper ballot voting once every three years as per our current system.

The paper based system though has the problem of only being able to change your delegate every 3 years.

The problem with computers is you have situations like over in America with their voting machines.

You could have a situation where you assign a number to your vote and the highest number is what counts. When you have to show someone your vote you give the number which shows that you have the delegate that they wanted you to have.

Maybe even a pseudo-annonomace thing. The id and delegate combination is public. The id-person combination is not.

I like the idea of having a public ID number that is only privately linked to you, but there is a risk that if it is ever leaked your entire voting history will be public record. I think it best to keep it as private as possible.

I like the idea of having a public ID number that is only privately linked to you, but there is a risk that if it is ever leaked your entire voting history will be public record. I think it best to keep it as private as possible.

It comes down to privacy vs authentication. I think a parallel is bitcoin addresses.

And you possible only store the last vote anyway to guard against the entire voting history.

That is always going to be a problem with secret ballots. You either go with a paper system and observers to the count, or take the risk. With an electronic system, there is no easy way around it. One option might be to release voting results on a suburb or postcode basis. That way it would be easy to conduct a poll as a sanity check on the official figures.

I support rule of the majority. I define 'majority' differently to you. to me - a majority means more than anyone else

Why don't you redefine mandate while you are at it? Oh wait, you just did.

Quote:

I have said nothing of the sort in fact I say quite the opposite.

Of course you say the opposite. It is called contradicting yourself and being a hypocrite, and I don't have to redefine those terms to apply them to you. I can quote you on any of it if you want, so go ahead and pick something you think I am wrong about.

Longy do you have a rational explanation for all your self contradictions? Your "I don't know what majority means" argument looks a bit hollow when you start to use that pretend majority as the grounds for a clear and unambiguous moral mandate.